The U.S. government strongly believes that North Korean agents murdered the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Malaysia, U.S. government sources said on Tuesday.
American authorities have not yet determined exactly how Kim Jong Nam was killed, according to two sources, who did not provide specific evidence to support the U.S. government’s view.
A South Korean government source also had said that Kim Jong Nam had been murdered in Malaysia. He did not provide further details.
South Korea’s foreign ministry said it could not confirm the reports, and the country’s intelligence agency could not immediately be reached for comment.
In Washington, there was no immediate response to a request for comment from the Trump administration, which faces a stiff challenge from a defiant North Korea over its nuclear arms program and the test of a ballistic missile last weekend. (Read more from “North Korea Suspected Behind Murder of Leader’s Half-Brother: U.S. Sources” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/6538671777_b7f16d17c8_z.jpg388620Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-14 19:34:302017-02-14 19:34:30North Korea Suspected Behind Murder of Leader’s Half-Brother: U.S. Sources
A Russian spy ship was spotted patrolling off the East Coast of the United States on Tuesday morning, the first such instance during the Trump administration — and the same day it was learned the Kremlin had secretly deployed controversial cruise missiles inside Russia and flew within 200 yards of a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials told Fox News.
The Russian ship was in international waters, 70 miles off the coast of Delaware and heading north at 10 knots, according to one official. The U.S. territory line is 12 nautical miles.
It was not immediately clear where the ship is headed.
Later Tuesday, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Russia had deployed ground-launched cruise missiles to two locations inside the country in December. The New York Times first reported that the Obama administration had previously seen the missiles — then in a testing phase — as a violation of a 1987 treaty between the U.S. and Russia that banned ground-launched intermediate-range missiles.
But Russia has pressed ahead with its program, apparently testing a Trump administration which has sought better ties with Moscow — but is also fresh off the loss of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned Monday night in the wake of a scandal surrounding his communications with Russia. (Read more from “Russia Sends Spy Ship Near US Coast, Deploys Banned Missiles at Home, Officials Say” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Flag-of-Russia-russia-13511410-1920-1200.jpg12001920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-14 19:30:432017-02-14 19:30:43Russia Sends Spy Ship Near US Coast, Deploys Banned Missiles at Home, Officials Say
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) on Tuesday mocked President Trump with a Valentine’s Day card featuring Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Trump’s having a tough day,” the DCCC said Tuesday in a tweet. “We thought a Valentine’s Day card could cheer him up!”
The tweet included an image of a card, which featured a picture of Putin wearing red heart-shaped glasses.
The image included a poem that read: “Roses are red. Violets are blue. We’re sorry that Putin is the only one who loves you.” . . .
“We can’t let Trump off the hook just because it’s Valentine’s Day,” the page said. “Sign our tongue-in-cheek card to remind him the resistance will never let up.” (Read more from “House Dems Troll Trump With Valentine’s Day Card” HERE)
The discount retailer Burlington Coat Factory no longer sells products from Ivanka Trump’s brand online.
As of Friday, the retailer’s website doesn’t show a stock of Ivanka Trump accessories and clothing. The change comes amid news of several retailers dropping the first daughter’s line in the last two weeks, including Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and Gilt.
Burlington was selling 13 items from Ivanka’s fashion line as of Tuesday, according to Shannon Coulter, the brand strategist who started the #GrabYourWallet boycott of Trump products.
Since October, Coulter has charted which retailers do business with the Trump family on the Grab Your Wallet website. People who oppose President Donald Trump’s actions and policies were encouraged to boycott these retailers.
Some retailers have said sales of Ivanka Trump products slumped. Sales of Ivanka’s line at Nordstrom fell 32% in 2016, with the worst decline in the second half of the year as the election heated up, The Wall Street Journal reported. (Read more from “Burlington Is the Latest Retailer to Drop Ivanka Trump’s Brand Online” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/29120400323_1d65839056_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-14 18:59:592017-02-14 18:59:59Burlington Is the Latest Retailer to Drop Ivanka Trump’s Brand Online
Monday marks a year since the tragedy of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death while on a hunting trip in west Texas, and his legal insight remains as poignant and pertinent as the day he left this world.
The Ninth Circuit court has recently come under fire from all sides for their “absurd,” “dangerous,” and “damningly silly” ruling against President Donald Trump’s travel suspension. And the current dustup between the judiciary and the executive — as well as the impending nomination fight over Scalia’s successor — raises the question on the anniversary of his death: What would Justice Scalia have to say about all this?
While we will never know the answer to that on this side of paradise, the late jurist’s dissent in a previous immigration case might offer some insight.
The case was Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001. The question before the court was whether or not the executive branch had a right to detain an alien set for deportation indefinitely, or if the 90-day detention period created some sort of “right” to be released back into the general population.
While the 5-4 majority ruled that the detention period was limited to 90 days, Scalia dissented (joined by Clarence Thomas), arguing that the rights of aliens to be deported run along the same lines as those at the border seeking entry.
Here’s what Scalia had to say about both:
“Insofar as a claimed legal right to release into this country is concerned. “An alien under final order of removal stands on an equal footing with an inadmissible alien at the threshold of entry: He has no such right.
“We are offered no justification why an alien under a valid and final order of removal – which has totally extinguished whatever right to presence in this country he possessed – has any greater due process right to be released into the country than an alien at the border seeking entry.”
Scalia makes this point its simplest, by offering: “[A]n inadmissible alien at the border has no right to be in the United States.”
In the case, Scalia also goes back to Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent from in Shaughnessy v. United States in 1953, which Justice Frankfurter joined:
“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will. Nothing in the Constitution requires admission or sufferance of aliens hostile to our scheme of government.”
This, of course, doesn’t mean that someone’s human rights are contingent upon their citizenship, but that but that there is no such thing as a right for a person to enter the country of which they are not a citizen. “[Another previous immigration case] at least involved aliens under final order of deportation,” explained Scalia in the Zadvydas dissent. “But all it held is that they could not be subjected to the punishment of hard labor without a judicial trial. I am sure they cannot be tortured, as well–but neither prohibition has anything to do with their right to be released into the United States.”
Yet the Ninth Circuit has ruled that every potential migrant in a terror-infested warzone of a failed state now has constitutional due process rights to come in whenever they want, that government institutions somehow suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” as a result, and that campaign statements are fair game in evaluating a law.
A year since his passing, Scalia’s absence has left an unmistakable void on American jurisprudence, and time will only tell if Trump’s Supreme Court pick will prove up to the task of following such a titanic presence on the bench.
One thing is certain, however: As the federal circuits slip further and further into absolute legal nonsense like that seen last week, Justice Antonin Scalia’s witty, commonsensical clarity will only be missed more and more. (For more from the author of “Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/25040287715_50db1ae9b4_b.jpg6731024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-13 21:50:342017-02-19 07:39:53Scalia Breaks It Down: Is There a ‘Right’ to Immigrate to the US?
Valentine’s Day has been banned from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The nation’s high court in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital city, ruled Monday that the country’s citizens must refrain from celebrating the holiday “with immediate effect.”
A citizen petition made its way to the superior court one day before the holiday commences. Abdul Waheed, who drafted the document, claimed Valentine’s Day is “against the teachings of Islam and should be banned immediately,” CNN reports. The court concurred with Waheed, claiming the holiday clashes with Muslim life. The Islamabad High Court ruled that the festivities are actually a “cover” to spread “immorality, nudity, and indecency… which is against our rich traditions and values.”
Valentine’s Day has become increasingly popular among Pakistani youth and has acted as a boon for florists and business owners. However, Islamist leaders feel the society at large has been placed under direct attack with the embrace of the Western holiday, and print and electronic media in the country have been warned about promoting the holiday’s events and activities.
In February 2016, Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain added his voice to the masses calling for the ban. Hussain stated, “Valentine’s Day has no connection to our culture and it should be avoided.”
Jamaat-e-Islami, a hardline Islamist group with millions of followers, has led the effort to protect Pakistan against parts of the country that “wants to impose Western values and culture on our youth by celebrating Valentine’s day,” according to an anti-Valentine’s Day resolution passed last year in Peshawar. “There is no place in our culture and in our civilization for such an unnecessary and rude day, which aims to spread vulgarity and indecency amongst the youth,” the resolution continued.
Pakistan’s Islamic traditions have created an environment that is extremely hostile to religious freedom and basic human rights. For example, identifying or being revealed as a homosexual in Pakistan can result in long-term imprisonment, and the state is also notorious for discriminating against religious minorities.
Pakistan does not have anything remotely resembling free speech. Criticizing Islam or Muhammad can result in punishments ranging from a harsh fine to a death sentence. The majority of Pakistanis support the state’s blasphemy laws. (For more from the author of “Shot Through the Heart: Pakistan Bans Valentine’s Day Because It’s Not Islamic” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/16459309086_aec9f8a6f5_b.jpg5761024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-13 21:44:372017-02-13 21:44:37Shot Through the Heart: Pakistan Bans Valentine’s Day Because It’s Not Islamic
You heard that right. At the same time the Ninth Circuit is flipping federal immigration power on its head and allowing states to block Trump’s lawful order reducing dangerous immigration, it is forcing Arizona to comply with Obama’s executive amnesty and provide illegal aliens with driver’s licenses.
There is no word in the English language to describe this degree of perfidy and hypocrisy. I don’t know how I missed this, but just one week before the Ninth Circuit nullified federal immigration laws and lawfully delegated presidential powers, the full court refused to overturn a three-judge panel that forced Arizona to provide DACA recipients with driver’s licenses.
The rationale of the court? Arizona was preempted by federal immigration powers!!!
“The federal government, not the states, holds exclusive authority concerning direct matters of immigration law,” wrote the radical Judge Harry Pregerson. This opinion to deny the rehearing of the case was joined by 23 of the remaining 28 active judges on the Ninth Circuit … including Judge Michelle Friedland. She wrote the opinion last week saying that states can force the federal government to bring in more immigrants even when the president is acting on iron-clad statutory authority.
Just last week, I detailed how the federal courts are flipping federalism and immigration on its head — upside down, inside out. However, the juxtaposition of these two decisions takes the duplicity to a new level. A few points to consider:
1) Sure, the federal government controls immigration, but which branch? Congress. With Obama’s DACA amnesty, Obama unilaterally nullified federal statutes and created his own immigration program, a program that was explicitly rejected by Congress. Trump, on the other hand, was following a long tradition of delegated authority to ratchet down immigration as needed, in concert with five congressional statutes.
2) Arizona was being asked by illegal aliens, who should never have had standing to sue, to initiate a positive action in order to abide by Obama’s unlawful amnesty. Washington and Minnesota, on the other hand, were given no mandate by Trump’s order. They were the ones burdening the federal government and overriding federal plenary power over immigration.
3) As Scalia noted in Arizona v. U.S., “the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.” On the other hand, it was designed precisely to prevent liberal states from flooding the rest of the union with immigrants the federal government deemed undesirable, as the Ninth Circuit allowed Washington to do last week.
4) In Texas v. U.S., the Obama administration explicitly argued that states could not get standing to sue against the executive amnesty precisely because, in their view, states were not obligated to issue driver’s licenses! Now the Ninth Circuit is contending that states must give driver’s licenses but have no reason to complain!
5) After ruling that the state of Washington will suffer irreparable harm if Trump exercises his legitimate authority to keep out un-vetted immigrants from war-torn countries, the same panel ruled that “Arizona has no cognizable interest in making the distinction it has for drivers’ licenses purposes.” The fact that almost 30,000 driving offenses have been committed just by the 30,558 criminal aliens Obama released in fiscal year 2014 alone is evidently of no concern to Judge Pregerson, who has replaced jurisprudence with political rants.
6) There is a seamless flow from obtaining a driver’s license to voting via the motor-voter laws. Yet, this same court has prevented Arizona from verifying proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
7) With at least 630,000 illegals residing in the state, at a cost of $2.4 billion a year, Arizona is left defiled and helpless in protecting its own residents and even their right to vote in untainted elections. Over 10% of the state’s public school population is comprised of illegal alien children. The Arizona Department of Corrections estimates that illegal aliens comprise 17% of its prison population and 22% of all felony defendants in Maricopa County. Arizona has become the drug smuggling capital of the country. From 2010-2015, heroin seizures in Arizona have increased by 207%, while methamphetamine seizures grew by 310%. In FY 2014, there were more pounds of marijuana seized in the Tucson corridor than every other border sector combined. Yet, the state has no “cognizable interest” in fighting a past president’ illegal amnesty, but Washington state has an interest in overturning federal immigration power of an existing president and demanding its own immigrants!?
The courts of Sodom and Gomorrah indeed.
This is why it is foolish for any conservative to suggest that a better prepared Trump administration could have survived the Ninth Circuit. Those judges are willing to use opposing legal theories in order to achieve the “right” political outcome at any and all costs. That is why we need wholesale judicial reform and why it must start with breaking up the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Arizona’s junior senator, Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. (F, 50%) is more bothered by the criticism of these judges than what they are doing to disembowel his own state.
The fact that states are still being forced to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens is another reason why Trump must terminate DACA. It’s not merely about the inaction of declining to deport this category of illegal aliens. These illegals are unconstitutionally obtaining Social Security cards, which forces states to issue driver’s licenses. It’s time for Trump and Congress to unite on behalf of Arizona and expose the duplicity of the courts. (For more from the author of “Ninth Circuit Forces Arizona to Follow Obama’s Illegal Amnesty, Provide Illegals With Driver’s Licenses” please click HERE)
People in Washington, D.C. are worried. Officials in the seat of the federal government have begun to express concern that President Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” by reducing the federal workforce. There are fears Trump’s plans to cut government spending will harm the city’s economy, increase unemployment, and generally puncture what has historically been a recession-proof bubble of economic activity.
Are they right to be worried? Well, yes and no. Assuming that Trump actually does follow through on his plans to reduce the federal workforce, some people will lose their jobs. Some will move out of the District, and others may even go on public assistance while they look for new sources of income. It will be a rocky road for some government employees, and this disruption will ripple over, at least temporarily, into other industries.
But that does not mean that draining the swamp will be a bad thing, or that it will have a net negative effect on the economy. In fact, we should expect just the opposite. The reason is that government jobs differ from private sector jobs in a fundamental way. In order for a job to exist in the private sector, it must produce something that people value. If a worker is not earning his employer more in revenue than he is costing in wages, the employer can boost profits by firing him. There are undoubtedly some bad businessmen who employ unproductive employees by mistake, but ultimately they will suffer for their ineptitude, and poorly managed businesses will perish as better ones take their place.
Not so with the government. The government worker collects a salary that is forcibly seized from the taxpayers. He needs not generate a profit, satisfy consumer demand, or produce anything of value at all. All he has to do is remain unnoticed by his superiors and he gets to keep collecting a paycheck at the public’s expense.
If these people lose their jobs, their labor will be freed up to engage in more productive pursuits that can actually contribute to society instead of leeching off of it. To understand this, imagine a whole city where everyone is employed digging holes and filling them back in again. If we eliminated all of those jobs, the temporary unemployment would be a hardship for the workers themselves. The resources devoted to the useless activity of hole-digging, however, could be put towards something useful instead, and the workers could devote their talents towards helping their fellow man. It would be indisputable that such a reallocation would be beneficial, in the long run at least. The reallocation that comes from draining the swamp would be comparably desirable.
The great French economist Frederic Bastiat illustrated this phenomenon with what is known as the “Broken Window Fallacy.” The fallacy holds that breaking windows is good for the economy because it provides work for glassmakers. What Bastiat realized was that a society not forced to constantly repair broken windows is free to exert its efforts in other directions. That way we can enjoy the benefit of functioning windows, but also of everything else that extra labor can produce. While bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. aren’t actively breaking windows, they might as well be, for all the harm they cause with overregulation, excessive taxation, and general interference with American economic activity. Ultimately, their loss, in the words of W.S. Gilbert, will be a distinct gain to society at large. (For more from the author of “Will Trump’s Plan to Drain the Swamp Leave DC High and Dry?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/swamp-971210_960_720-1.jpg639960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-13 21:31:182017-02-13 21:31:18Will Trump’s Plan to Drain the Swamp Leave DC High and Dry?
Valentine’s Day makes people think about love. What is it? How do I know it’s real? Can it last? Should it last? Here are a few secular definitions of love:
A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved — novelist Kurt Vonnegut
What is love but acceptance of the other, whatever he is — French erotic writer Anaïs Nin
Love is like a fever which comes and goes quite independently of the will — French novelist Stendhal
Love is a fog that burns [away] with the first daylight of reality. — Hip poet Charles Bukowski
So, the world says, love is loving who you’re with, accepting others, fickle, fleeting and unrealistic. That’s not all wrong, but even when it’s true, it’s not the whole truth.
What is Love, Actually?
I’d like to propose a new definition of love. Well, it really isn’t a new definition at all — it’s thousands of years old! Those of us who are Christians are familiar with the Author of love, whose love is perfect and embraces us daily. John defines love, through the example of Christ, like this:
By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren — 1 John 3:16
Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends — John 15:13
Deuteronomy 7:9 gives us an another example of God’s love:
Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations [my emphasis]
Love, as God defines it, is steadfast — enduring — to a thousand generations! God’s love has nothing to do with fickle or fleeting emotions. It is true, long-lasting and unconditional. Love is selfless, self-giving — even to the point of laying down our lives for another.
I’m not advocating throwing our lives away, but I am saying — and I believe God is saying — that we must live in such a way that others see Christ in us. His love was sacrificial — He chose to lay down His life for us.
On a Day Like Valentine’s Day
Jesus died on the cross to atone for our wrongdoing, then he rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us. That is the ultimate meaning of love: sacrificial, enduring and unconditional love poured out for others and to further our Kingdom purpose.
So when we think about a day like Valentine’s Day, let’s remember the definition of true love. It’s not flighty, fickle emotion, but a life that represents and reflects Christ through selfless giving toward others — a love that changes lives and lasts for all time. (For more from the author of “On Valentine’s Day, Remember: The World Gets Love Half-Wrong” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/valentines-day-609345_960_720.jpg720720Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-13 21:19:022017-02-13 21:29:37On Valentine’s Day, Remember: The World Gets Love Half-Wrong
At the Grammy Awards Sunday night transgender actor and activist Laverne Cox took the opportunity while introducing Lady Gaga to tell America “Google Gavin Grimm” and “Hashtag I Stand With Gavin.”
Who is Gavin Grimm? That would be the Grimm of Grimm v. Gloucester, a case headed to the Supreme Court in March involving one southern Virginia school district’s refusal to accept Obama’s broad new transgender directives to public schools.
Obama’s administration claimed Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination means Gavin (a girl who identifies as a boy) gets to use the boys’ bathroom. This is the case I flagged in a previous Stream column as an important early marker of the new Trump administration’s willingness to roll back Obama’s lawless legacy that threatens not only the privacy of girls, but the rights of traditional religious schools and charities to refuse to hire gay married teachers or workers.
Trump Leaves Bathroom Debates to the Schools, as Promised
Trump’s acceptance of Obama’s executive order banning discrimination based on gender identity raised real concerns, especially as Trump never promised to push substantive religious liberty protections that conflict with LGBT protections.
Well, Jeff Sessions wasn’t installed as attorney general for more than 24 hours before taking steps to deliver on a key promise Trump did make: to leave the transgender bathroom issue to local schools to handle.
The case is Texas (et al) v. the United States. A federal judge had granted a nationwide injunction preventing the federal government from reinterpreting Title IX’s sex discrimination ban to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The Obama administration then asked the judge to narrow his injunction to only the dozen or so states who were parties to the suit. Oral arguments were scheduled for Valentine’s Day. But the Justice department just withdrew that request to narrow the injunction, mooting that part of the case; the oral arguments are cancelled.
The federal judge’s nationwide injunction stands for now as the Justice Department considers next steps. (Complicating the decision: The defendants in this case are not only the Justice Department, and the Education Department, both of which are under the direct control of the Trump administration, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which is now dominated by Obama appointees. The Trump administration could withdraw, leaving the EEOC as the lone defendant.)
Will Trump Withdraw Obama’s Absurd Guidance?
Both this case and Grimm v. Gloucester rest in part on the legality of the May 13, 2016 guidance letter the Obama administration sent to every public school in America warning them they may risk losing federal funds if they do not permit students who identify as transgender to use the bathroom and shower of their choice.
The Justice Department is not a direct party to this case, but the Obama administration did file an amicus brief supporting Grimm’s argument that a transgender person has a right to use the showers and bathrooms of his or her choice. Among the most absurd of many absurd arguments? The Obama administration claimed including gender “converts” under sex discrimination is like protecting religious converts against religious discrimination.
Look for the Trump administration to withdraw that brief, and write a new one defending the actual meaning of the law as passed in 1972, which clearly did not include broad new LGBT protections.
The next step is for the new Education secretary Betsy Devos to withdraw Obama’s guidelines on Title IX pronto.
Meanwhile on Day 2 of Jeff Session’s tenure as attorney general the verdict has to be: Trump delivered. (For more from the author of “When It Comes to the School Bathroom Debate, Trump Is Delivering on His Promises” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/8567822300_e2320094d4_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-13 21:13:312017-02-13 21:13:31When It Comes to the School Bathroom Debate, Trump Is Delivering on His Promises
